The Coinage of the Gupta Empire and its Imitations c17.s1.5

c17.s1.5

After making a close and exhaustive study of the problem published elsewhere,¹ the present writer has come to the conclusion that the symbols do not appear to have possessed any particular significance. The symbols on the Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian coinage are usually combinations of Greek or Kharoshṭhī letters. Such is not the case either with the Kushāṇa or the Gupta symbols. Gondopharnes had a symbol peculiar to himself; each of the Great Kushāṇa emperors had only one or two symbols upon his coins, which to some extent may be regarded as peculiar to him. But no symbol can be regarded as peculiar to any Gupta king with the only exception of Prakāśāditya. In the case of the early Gupta emperors we have a very large number of symbols associated with each, and many of them are continued by their successors. This circumstance renders the theory of the symbols being associated with particular mint-master also improbable; symbols like ☤, ☥, ☧, etc. persist through several reigns. No mint-master could have lived so long. It is, however, possible that some rare symbols like ☨, ☩, ☪ and ☫, which appear on solitary or rare coins, may be the choice of particular artists. If so, we cannot identify them. The theory of particular symbols being associated with particular mint cities is difficult to prove. There is no evidence to connect a particular symbol with a particular city. Some coins have two symbols; were they partly minted in one city and partly in another? Smith's theory² that the symbols had some religious significance does also not appear as a probable one. The goddesses on the coins of Chandragupta I and Chandragupta II are most probably Durgā and Lakshmī respectively, but they have no Śaiva and Vaishṇava symbols associated with them. Kārtikeya type was certainly issued in honour of that deity; but it bears no Śaiva symbol. Śaṅkha and chakra sometimes appear in the field, but not as, or in the place of, symbols.